She said those statement indicated Skyride "had skydiving facilities in locales advertised whe in fact they did not, or alternatively, that consumers could redeem (Skyride's) certificates at locations where they in fact could not."

Smith said the fact that Skydive Arizona did not rely on consumer surveys did not undermine its legal case.

"Although a consumer survey could also have proven materiality in this case, we decline to hold that it was the only way to prove materiality," the appellate judge wrote.

"Consumer surveys tend to be most powerful when used in dealing with deceptive advertising that is literally true but misleading," the judge continued.

But in this case, Smith said, Skyride advertisements "were both misleading and false."

Flynn's declaration proved consumers had been confused by Skyride's websites and advertising, the judge said.

That was backed up by evidence presented by Skydive Arizona of numerous consumers who telephoned or came into its facility after having been deceived into believing there was an affiliation with Skyride, he added.